Exegesis of the saying of Allah the Exalted: "Indeed, alms are only for the poor and the needy... and for those in debt..."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : The second verse Who will complete it?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Their hearts.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : All right, take a break.[At-Tawbah 9:60] By alms, we mean zakah. It implies restriction, which is establishing the ruling for what is mentioned and negating it for everything else. These two categories take zakah because of their need, but the poor are in greater need than the needy. The evidence that the poor are in greater need is that Allah began with them, and one begins with the most deserving, then the most important, then the most important. But who are the poor and the needy? The scholars said: One who has less than half of what is sufficient for him is poor, and one who has less than what is sufficient for him is needy. The distinction is clear, not unclear. One who has less than half of what is sufficient for him is...
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : And one who has less than what is sufficient for him is needy. All right, what about one who has three-quarters of what is sufficient for him?
The student: Needy.
The Shaykh : Needy, not poor. Needy. What about one who has two-thirds of what is sufficient for him?
The student: Needy.
The Shaykh : Needy. One who has a quarter of what is sufficient for him is poor. What Allah wills. May Allah bless you.
But how do we know what is sufficient? Let us suppose a man has ten thousand riyals, and he estimates that it will suffice him for a year, but then prices rise and it does not suffice him, or prices fall and it suffices him for two years. What is the criterion? We can say the criterion is: if we estimate that a salaried man, a salaried man, has a salary of three thousand and spends four thousand a month on himself and his family, what do you say? Is this man needy or poor, my brothers?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : This man is needy because he has three-quarters of what is sufficient for him. Is he given from zakah or not? He is given from zakah what completes it. We said his salary is how much? Three, and his need is four. So how much do we give him?
The student: One thousand.
The Shaykh : No, for the whole year? We give him twelve thousand. We give him twelve thousand because we give him what is sufficient for him for a year, so we give him twelve thousand. But we do not give him more unless he becomes poor during the year, in which case we complete it for him. Is that clear, everyone?
Another man has a salary of one thousand riyals, but his expenses are four thousand riyals. Is he poor or needy?
The student: Poor.
The Shaykh : Poor. How much do we give him? Three a month. Multiply that by twelve. We give him thirty-six thousand because we give the poor and the needy the amount sufficient for them for a year: thirty-six thousand. All right, a man has a salary of three thousand riyals that suffices him for food, drink, clothing, and housing. He is doing well, but he needs to marry and does not have a mahr. Do we give him?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do we give him a mahr? Right now he eats and drinks, is clothed, and has a home, but he needs to marry. How much do we give him? Do we give him the full mahr, half the mahr, or a quarter of it?
The student: The full mahr.
The Shaykh : The full mahr. We give him the full mahr. So if we find a committed, upright young man who is doing well, as they say, but he needs to marry, we give him from zakah. We ask him how much the mahr is. He says the mahr is ten thousand. How much do we give him? Only ten thousand. If he says the mahr is fifty thousand, how much do we give him? We give him fifty thousand because the mahr is part of maintenance. Therefore, it is obligatory for a wealthy father, if he has a son who needs to marry, that he must marry him. He must marry him. This is a matter in which many fathers fall short. The young man comes to his father and says, "O my father, marry me. I need to marry." He says, "What level are you at in university?" He says, "I am in the first year." He says, "You have three years left. When you graduate, I will marry you." This is haram upon him. It is haram for the father. He must marry his son. Another father, his son came to him wanting to marry, and he said, "You will not scratch your back except with your own fingernail." Do you understand the meaning? "You will not scratch your back except with your own fingernail" means: you get the mahr and you marry, and the father is wealthy. This is also haram upon him. It is obligatory for the father to marry his son if he needs to marry, just as it is obligatory for him to give him his food and drink. Did you understand? All right, if the father married his son the first time, and Allah did not bring about agreement between them, so he divorced her, and the son comes to his father asking him to marry him again, is it obligatory for the father to marry him? Answer, everyone? Yes, it is obligatory for him to marry him. It is obligatory for him to marry him.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Take a break. There is no question. The important thing is that it is obligatory for him to marry him. All right, he married the second time. The young man has strong desire, and one wife did not suffice him, so he asked his father to marry him a second time, in addition to the one he has now. Is it obligatory for him to marry him? Yes, it is obligatory. A third.
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : A fourth.
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : A fifth. That is enough, the threshold is reached. All right, in any case, the important thing is that we know that it is obligatory for a father to marry his sons who cannot afford it. He will be punished for it and held accountable for it on the Day of Resurrection. And note that this is a human right. That is, if a father refuses to marry his son while he is wealthy and the son is poor, this is a human right. And regarding human rights, the scholars say that punishment is necessary for them. Therefore, the father will be punished for preventing his sons from being given what they need to marry with.
All right, if he gave his son who needed to marry a mahr of fifty thousand, but he has young sons who have not reached the age of marriage, is it obligatory for him to give them the same? Yes, it is not obligatory, and it is also not permissible. It is not obligatory and not permissible, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)Sahih al-Bukhari 2587 If we gave the young one who has not reached the age of marriage, we would not be just between the children, because we only married the first one because of his need, because of his need. Therefore, it is not permissible for us to give the others what we gave this one. All right, if someone asks: Is it permissible for the father to bequeath something of his wealth after his death to be given to those who did not reach the age of marriage in his lifetime, in the amount he gave the first one? Is it permissible or not? It is not permissible. Be careful, my brother. If he says, "I gave the son who is getting married fifty thousand, and I wrote in my will that my second son is to be given fifty thousand and the third son fifty thousand from the estate," we say this is haram, not permissible. Because if these sons reach the age of marriage in his lifetime, he must marry them. And if they do not reach the age of marriage in his lifetime, they have no right to anything except what Allah has decreed for them from the inheritance. Did you understand, everyone? All right, all right. A man has sons. One is very tall, how tall? Two meters. The second is very short, one meter. The first son's clothing costs how much? We said the first son's clothing is one hundred. The second son's clothing, because it is shorter, is fifty. Is it permissible, if he clothes the second son with clothing worth fifty, to give him the difference between it and his brother's clothing, fifty? No, this is exactly like the marriage issue. This is exactly like the marriage issue. So justice is to give each one what he needs. You are watching the clock now. You are watching the clock. Yes. All right, if [At-Tawbah 9:60] Here is a question: Is it permissible for a person to give his zakah to one of his relatives if he is poor or needy? It is permissible, and giving to relatives is more preferable, provided that the person giving zakah is not obligated to maintain them. If he is obligated to maintain them, then it is not permissible for him to give them from his zakah, because if he gives them, he saves his money. If he gives them, he saves his money. Be careful. We have two full brothers, one is poor and the other is wealthy. Is it permissible for the wealthy one to give his poor brother from his zakah? No, it is not permissible, because if his poor brother dies, the wealthy one would inherit from him. And if a person inherits from the poor, he is obligated to maintain him, due to the saying of Allah the Exalted [Al-Baqarah 2:233] If two full brothers, one is poor and the other is wealthy, is it permissible for the wealthy one to give his zakah to the poor one? Get up.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because if he gives him, he saves his money. For example, if this poor man... take a break. If this poor man needs ten thousand for maintenance, and the wealthy one gives him ten thousand from zakah, now the poor man is wealthy and does not need maintenance. So the one who gave him the zakah has saved his money from his zakah, and this is haram. All right, two full brothers, the poor one has children. Is it permissible for the wealthy one to give his full brother?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : My brothers, you just said a moment ago that it is not permissible for the poor full brother... it is not permissible for his wealthy brother to give him zakah. But the question now is: two full brothers, the poor one has children. Is it permissible for the wealthy one to give him from his zakah? It is permissible, because in this case, the wealthy one does not inherit from the poor one, so he is not obligated to maintain him. Is that clear, everyone? If the poor one is not one you are obligated to maintain, it is permissible for you to give him from your zakah. In fact, giving to him is better than giving to someone who is not a relative to you. Be careful.
All right, a father is doing well, and his son is wealthy. An accident happened to the father and he needed money. Is it permissible for his son to pay his zakah for this accident? Yes?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Is it permissible? Yes, it is permissible for him to pay the debt incurred by his father due to an accident. Why? Because a son is not obligated to guarantee the debt incurred by his father due to an accident, unlike maintenance. Providing for the father is obligatory, but bearing what he owes due to an accident is not obligatory for the son. Based on this, we say that in this case, it is permissible for the son to pay his father's debt from this accident. And the same applies in reverse. Pay attention, my brother, so you know the rule: if you are obligated to provide for this poor person or to pay off his debt, do not give your zakah to him. If you are not obligated, then the close relative is more deserving than the distant one. Now, a woman has jewelry and wants to pay its zakah, and her husband is poor. Is it permissible for her to give her zakah to her husband? Yes? Yes, no, it is permissible for her to give her husband from her zakah as long as he is among those eligible for zakah. The evidence, the evidence, brother, the evidence is with us, my brothers:[At-Tawbah 9:60] This is like the poor person. So whoever excludes the poor husband from the generality of the verse, he must provide evidence. The husband is now poor, so you give him from the zakah. If someone says, "If you give him from the zakah, he will spend on you," we say, "It does no harm." It is like if you gave your zakat al-fitr to a poor person, then he invited you to his home and cooked food for you from that zakat. Is it permissible for you to eat it, or not? It is permissible, so it does no harm. What remains is that we ask: what does the term "those in debt" (al-gharimin) mean? The person in debt is one who is obligated to pay a debt and is unable to settle it, so his debt is paid from the zakah. But do you give this person in debt to pay the debt, or do you go to the creditor and give him the debt? Pay attention, my brother. This is a man, a man who owes one thousand riyals. A man who owes one thousand riyals. Do you give him one thousand and say, "So-and-so, pay your debt with the one thousand," or do you go to the one who is demanding it and say, "So-and-so, this is one thousand riyals for what you have against Zayd"? Which is it, my brothers?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, the first one. What does he say?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second? I do not say the first or the second; there is a detail in this. If the person in debt who owes the money is someone who wants to clear his conscience, and we know that if we give him this money to pay it, he will go and pay it, then it is better to give it to him in his hand and say, "So-and-so, take this and pay it on your behalf," because this is better for his heart and because it keeps him further from embarrassment.
As for if we know that if we give this person in debt to pay his debt, he will waste the money and spend it on fruit, an embroidered turban, or the like, and leave his conscience encumbered, then what do we do? We go to the creditor and say, "So-and-so, you are demanding one thousand riyals from so-and-so. This is one thousand riyals. But if you pay it on his behalf, inform him. Say, 'So-and-so, the debt you owe has been paid.'" Why? So that the creditor does not demand it from him a second time, either out of forgetfulness or out of aggression. Inform him.
The issue of a man who owes zakah amounting to one thousand riyals. He owes zakah amounting to one thousand riyals, and he has a poor person in debt with a debt amounting to one thousand riyals. Is it permissible for him to say to this poor person, "I have released you from your debt on account of my zakah"? Do you understand the question? Or shall we repeat it? We repeat it.
A man owes zakah amounting to one thousand riyals, meaning he has forty thousand, and the zakah on forty thousand is one thousand riyals. His zakah is one thousand riyals, and he has a debtor who is poor with a debt amounting to one thousand riyals. So the owner of the wealth came and said to the poor person, "I have released you from one thousand riyals on account of the zakah obligatory upon me." Is it permissible or not? We do not accept the left hand, my son. It is not permissible. That is, it is not permissible to release the poor person from any part of his debt and consider it as zakah, because the debt in the conscience is not like the money in your hand. The debt in the conscience is like that which is hopeless, and the money in your hand is in your hand, and you dispose of it as you wish. For this reason, we say as a rule: It is not permissible to release the insolvent person from the debt he owes with the intention of what? Zakah.
Yes, yes. The time is up. And we will, if Allah wills, return to the matter of zakah, because it is important and it is one of the pillars of Islam, and there is [more] before we complete the discussion.
Alms are only
إنما الصدقاتThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : Their hearts.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : All right, take a break.
Zakah expenditures are only for the poor
إنما الصدقات للفقراءfor the poor and the needy
للفقراء والمساكينThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : And one who has less than what is sufficient for him is needy. All right, what about one who has three-quarters of what is sufficient for him?
The student: Needy.
The Shaykh : Needy, not poor. Needy. What about one who has two-thirds of what is sufficient for him?
The student: Needy.
The Shaykh : Needy. One who has a quarter of what is sufficient for him is poor. What Allah wills. May Allah bless you.
But how do we know what is sufficient? Let us suppose a man has ten thousand riyals, and he estimates that it will suffice him for a year, but then prices rise and it does not suffice him, or prices fall and it suffices him for two years. What is the criterion? We can say the criterion is: if we estimate that a salaried man, a salaried man, has a salary of three thousand and spends four thousand a month on himself and his family, what do you say? Is this man needy or poor, my brothers?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : This man is needy because he has three-quarters of what is sufficient for him. Is he given from zakah or not? He is given from zakah what completes it. We said his salary is how much? Three, and his need is four. So how much do we give him?
The student: One thousand.
The Shaykh : No, for the whole year? We give him twelve thousand. We give him twelve thousand because we give him what is sufficient for him for a year, so we give him twelve thousand. But we do not give him more unless he becomes poor during the year, in which case we complete it for him. Is that clear, everyone?
Another man has a salary of one thousand riyals, but his expenses are four thousand riyals. Is he poor or needy?
The student: Poor.
The Shaykh : Poor. How much do we give him? Three a month. Multiply that by twelve. We give him thirty-six thousand because we give the poor and the needy the amount sufficient for them for a year: thirty-six thousand. All right, a man has a salary of three thousand riyals that suffices him for food, drink, clothing, and housing. He is doing well, but he needs to marry and does not have a mahr. Do we give him?
The student: Yes.
The Shaykh : Do we give him a mahr? Right now he eats and drinks, is clothed, and has a home, but he needs to marry. How much do we give him? Do we give him the full mahr, half the mahr, or a quarter of it?
The student: The full mahr.
The Shaykh : The full mahr. We give him the full mahr. So if we find a committed, upright young man who is doing well, as they say, but he needs to marry, we give him from zakah. We ask him how much the mahr is. He says the mahr is ten thousand. How much do we give him? Only ten thousand. If he says the mahr is fifty thousand, how much do we give him? We give him fifty thousand because the mahr is part of maintenance. Therefore, it is obligatory for a wealthy father, if he has a son who needs to marry, that he must marry him. He must marry him. This is a matter in which many fathers fall short. The young man comes to his father and says, "O my father, marry me. I need to marry." He says, "What level are you at in university?" He says, "I am in the first year." He says, "You have three years left. When you graduate, I will marry you." This is haram upon him. It is haram for the father. He must marry his son. Another father, his son came to him wanting to marry, and he said, "You will not scratch your back except with your own fingernail." Do you understand the meaning? "You will not scratch your back except with your own fingernail" means: you get the mahr and you marry, and the father is wealthy. This is also haram upon him. It is obligatory for the father to marry his son if he needs to marry, just as it is obligatory for him to give him his food and drink. Did you understand? All right, if the father married his son the first time, and Allah did not bring about agreement between them, so he divorced her, and the son comes to his father asking him to marry him again, is it obligatory for the father to marry him? Answer, everyone? Yes, it is obligatory for him to marry him. It is obligatory for him to marry him.
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Take a break. There is no question. The important thing is that it is obligatory for him to marry him. All right, he married the second time. The young man has strong desire, and one wife did not suffice him, so he asked his father to marry him a second time, in addition to the one he has now. Is it obligatory for him to marry him? Yes, it is obligatory. A third.
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : A fourth.
The student: It is obligatory.
The Shaykh : A fifth. That is enough, the threshold is reached. All right, in any case, the important thing is that we know that it is obligatory for a father to marry his sons who cannot afford it. He will be punished for it and held accountable for it on the Day of Resurrection. And note that this is a human right. That is, if a father refuses to marry his son while he is wealthy and the son is poor, this is a human right. And regarding human rights, the scholars say that punishment is necessary for them. Therefore, the father will be punished for preventing his sons from being given what they need to marry with.
All right, if he gave his son who needed to marry a mahr of fifty thousand, but he has young sons who have not reached the age of marriage, is it obligatory for him to give them the same? Yes, it is not obligatory, and it is also not permissible. It is not obligatory and not permissible, due to the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)
Be afraid of Allah, and be just to your children.
اتقوا الله واعدلوا بين أولادكمZakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah]
إنما الصدقات للفقراء والمساكين والعاملين عليهاAnd upon the [father's] heir is [a duty] like that [of the father].
وعلى الوارث مثل ذلكThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : It is not permissible, because if he gives him, he saves his money. For example, if this poor man... take a break. If this poor man needs ten thousand for maintenance, and the wealthy one gives him ten thousand from zakah, now the poor man is wealthy and does not need maintenance. So the one who gave him the zakah has saved his money from his zakah, and this is haram. All right, two full brothers, the poor one has children. Is it permissible for the wealthy one to give his full brother?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : My brothers, you just said a moment ago that it is not permissible for the poor full brother... it is not permissible for his wealthy brother to give him zakah. But the question now is: two full brothers, the poor one has children. Is it permissible for the wealthy one to give him from his zakah? It is permissible, because in this case, the wealthy one does not inherit from the poor one, so he is not obligated to maintain him. Is that clear, everyone? If the poor one is not one you are obligated to maintain, it is permissible for you to give him from your zakah. In fact, giving to him is better than giving to someone who is not a relative to you. Be careful.
All right, a father is doing well, and his son is wealthy. An accident happened to the father and he needed money. Is it permissible for his son to pay his zakah for this accident? Yes?
The student: ... .
The Shaykh : Is it permissible? Yes, it is permissible for him to pay the debt incurred by his father due to an accident. Why? Because a son is not obligated to guarantee the debt incurred by his father due to an accident, unlike maintenance. Providing for the father is obligatory, but bearing what he owes due to an accident is not obligatory for the son. Based on this, we say that in this case, it is permissible for the son to pay his father's debt from this accident. And the same applies in reverse. Pay attention, my brother, so you know the rule: if you are obligated to provide for this poor person or to pay off his debt, do not give your zakah to him. If you are not obligated, then the close relative is more deserving than the distant one. Now, a woman has jewelry and wants to pay its zakah, and her husband is poor. Is it permissible for her to give her zakah to her husband? Yes? Yes, no, it is permissible for her to give her husband from her zakah as long as he is among those eligible for zakah. The evidence, the evidence, brother, the evidence is with us, my brothers:
Zakah expenditures are only for the poor
إنما الصدقات للفقراءThe student: ... .
The Shaykh : Yes, the first one. What does he say?
The student: The second.
The Shaykh : The second? I do not say the first or the second; there is a detail in this. If the person in debt who owes the money is someone who wants to clear his conscience, and we know that if we give him this money to pay it, he will go and pay it, then it is better to give it to him in his hand and say, "So-and-so, take this and pay it on your behalf," because this is better for his heart and because it keeps him further from embarrassment.
As for if we know that if we give this person in debt to pay his debt, he will waste the money and spend it on fruit, an embroidered turban, or the like, and leave his conscience encumbered, then what do we do? We go to the creditor and say, "So-and-so, you are demanding one thousand riyals from so-and-so. This is one thousand riyals. But if you pay it on his behalf, inform him. Say, 'So-and-so, the debt you owe has been paid.'" Why? So that the creditor does not demand it from him a second time, either out of forgetfulness or out of aggression. Inform him.
The issue of a man who owes zakah amounting to one thousand riyals. He owes zakah amounting to one thousand riyals, and he has a poor person in debt with a debt amounting to one thousand riyals. Is it permissible for him to say to this poor person, "I have released you from your debt on account of my zakah"? Do you understand the question? Or shall we repeat it? We repeat it.
A man owes zakah amounting to one thousand riyals, meaning he has forty thousand, and the zakah on forty thousand is one thousand riyals. His zakah is one thousand riyals, and he has a debtor who is poor with a debt amounting to one thousand riyals. So the owner of the wealth came and said to the poor person, "I have released you from one thousand riyals on account of the zakah obligatory upon me." Is it permissible or not? We do not accept the left hand, my son. It is not permissible. That is, it is not permissible to release the poor person from any part of his debt and consider it as zakah, because the debt in the conscience is not like the money in your hand. The debt in the conscience is like that which is hopeless, and the money in your hand is in your hand, and you dispose of it as you wish. For this reason, we say as a rule: It is not permissible to release the insolvent person from the debt he owes with the intention of what? Zakah.
Yes, yes. The time is up. And we will, if Allah wills, return to the matter of zakah, because it is important and it is one of the pillars of Islam, and there is [more] before we complete the discussion.